4 ms·

I'm not a scientist. I can only post links and say "let's see, this might have some merit". The authors (or at least N. Gorkavyi) recently (12th Sep) announced

• acqq 9y ago
  Looking at who cited the paper you gave, I've found only one, and there is actually one rebuttal of the paper that cited the former: https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.00799 https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.00799 The authors of the rebuttal of that paper write: "Since those early years, a discussion took place on the different geodesics that can be written using local or non-local coordinates. Large accounts were published on this debate [10, 12–14]. Two sort of claims are recurring. Ignoring previous literature, there is a long list of scholars who pretend having discovered repulsion. They are listed in [10, 12–14]. The other concerns the attribution of physical consequences in the local environment of the falling body. For dismantling the latter claim, we follow the analysis by Cavalleri and Spinelli [15, 16]." "It is a coordinate effect appearing to an observer at a remote distance from the black hole and when coordinate time is employed. Repulsion has no bearing and relation to the local physics of the black hole, and moreover it cannot be held responsible for accelerating outgoing particles. Thereby, the energy boost of cosmic rays cannot be produced by repulsion." The rebutted paper doesn't have the same topic as the one you cite, so it doesn't have to mean too much or anything. But it hints about the way the "repulsion" claims can be problematic: "The main shortcoming of [17] is the assumption that repulsion, type i), is a physical effect and not just a coordinate effect. In other words, repulsion is only present when coordinate time is adopted and cannot explain phenomena local to the source, and ruled by proper time." However the lack of other responses to the paper you cite is so big at the moment that I don't expect much of it. Is there any response to the paper you cite, by any scientist, that you are aware of? But I see that the guy is productive, and produced dubious papers before, so much that he doesn't list them himself but that could be found: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AAS...206.4904G http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AAS...206.4904G The Pioneer anomaly is currently considered solved, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly and definitely not the way he attempted to do, just like now he mentions then "a total energy of relic high-frequency gravitational radiation in our Universe" etc. So I'm not holding my breath for his next paper. Edit: thanks for the link to his Russian blog. It seems even weirder than I could imagine, I haven't tried Google translate, but just looking, it appears that in one post he first writes about the EM drive stuff and only then he mentions that he apparently solved all the cosmological problems? Wow, he has his priorities. A typical troll, the way I see him.
  • lstodd 9y ago
    NASA ADS (link is ugly and is at the arxiv page) lists three citations. Of those, 1608.02882 (and also 1608.07136v1 which is not listed there) are a straight attempt at rebuttal, by the same author, the other two I didn't read yet. As far as I understand, which is not much, that attempt was found not well founded. At this point I can only suggest somehow searching for discussions that appeared back then in 2016. I don't think there was any formal (as in a published article) rebuttal of this rebuttal, only a summary in Gorkavyi's blog, which is in Russian and too complex for me to translate[1] I'd wait for more papers from the original authors, in the hope that they would generate more discussion. One has to take the academia's inertia into account - someone who wrote a couple of dozen papers on dark stuff is understandably reluctant to even mention and thus acknowledge a competing hypothesis. 1. https://don-beaver.livejournal.com/176937.html https://don-beaver.livejournal.com/176937.html